[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 242 (Friday, December 15, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 78434-78439]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-32025]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 242-0257; FRL-6917-6]


Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Imperial 
County Air Pollution Control District, Monterey Bay Unified Air 
Pollution Control District, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution 
Control District, and South Coast Air Quality Management District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We are proposing a limited approval and limited disapproval of 
revisions to the Imperial County Air Pollution Control District 
(ICAPCD) portion, Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District 
(MBUAPCD) portion, and the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution 
Control District (SJVUAPCD) portion of the California SIP concerning 
PM-10 emissions from livestock feed lots, agricultural burning, 
industrial processes, and residential wood burning.
    We are also proposing full approval of revisions to the ICAPCD 
portion of the California SIP concerning definitions, PM-10 emissions 
from orchard heaters, incinerators, open burning, and range improvement 
burning, and to the South Coast Air Quality Management District 
(SCAQMD) portion of the California SIP concerning PM-10 emissions from 
restaurant operations.
    We are also proposing full approval of rescissions from the MBUAPCD 
portion of the California SIP concerning exceptions to other rules.
    We are proposing action on local rules that regulate these emission 
sources under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). We 
are taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final 
action.

DATES: Any comments must arrive by January 16, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Mail comments to Andrew Steckel, Rulemaking Office Chief 
(AIR-4), Air Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 
75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105.
    You can inspect copies of the submitted rule revisions and EPA's 
technical support documents (TSDs) at our Region IX office during 
normal business hours. You may also see copies of the submitted rule 
revisions at the following locations:

Environmental Protection Agency, Air Docket (6102), Ariel Rios 
Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington D.C. 20460.
California Air Resources Board, Stationary Source Division, Rule 
Evaluation Section, 1001 ``I'' Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.
Imperial County Air Pollution Control District, 150 South Ninth Street, 
El Centro, CA 92243.
Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District, 24580 Silver Cloud 
Court, Monterey, CA 93940.
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, 1990 East 
Gettysburg Street, Fresno, CA 93726.
South Coast Air Quality Management District, 21865 East Copley Drive, 
Diamond Bar, CA 91765.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Al Petersen, Rulemaking Office (AIR-
4), Air Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, (415) 744-1135.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,'' 
and ``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What rules did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of these rules?
    C. What are the changes in the submitted rules?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?
    B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. What are the rule deficiencies?
    D. EPA recommendations to further improve the rules.
    E. Proposed action and public comment.
III. Background Information
    Why were these rules submitted?
IV. Administrative Requirements

I. The State's Submittal

A. What Rules Did the State Submit?

    Table 1 lists the rules proposed for limited approval and limited 
disapproval with the dates that they were adopted by the local air 
agency and submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB).

                                            Table 1--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Local agency                Rule No.            Rule title               Adopted        Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ICAPCD................................        420  Livestock Feed Yards.........        09/14/99        05/26/00
ICAPCD................................        701  Agricultural Burning.........        09/14/99        05/26/00
MBUAPCD...............................        403  Particulate Matter...........        03/22/00        05/26/00

[[Page 78435]]

 
SJVUAPCD..............................       4201  Particulate Matter                   12/17/92        11/18/93
                                                    Concentration.
SJVUAPCD..............................       4901  Residential Wood Burning.....        07/15/93        12/10/93
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 6, 2000, we determined that the submittals of ICAPCD 
Rules 420 and 701 and MBUAPCD Rule 403 met the completeness criteria in 
40 CFR part 51, appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review. 
On December 27, 1993, we determined that the submittal of SJVUAPCD Rule 
4201 met the completeness criteria. On February 7, 1994, we determined 
that the submittal of SJVUAPCD Rule 4901 met the completeness criteria.
    Table 2 lists the rules proposed for full approval with the dates 
that they were adopted or rescinded by the local air agency and 
submitted by the CARB.

                                            Table 2--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Local agency                Rule No.            Rule title               Adopted        Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ICAPCD................................        101  Definitions..................        09/14/99        05/26/00
ICAPCD................................        408  Frost Protection.............        09/14/99        05/26/00
ICAPCD................................        409  Incinerators.................        09/14/99        05/26/00
ICAPCD................................        421  Open Burning.................        09/14/99        05/26/00
ICAPCD................................        702  Range Improvement Burning....        09/14/99        05/26/00
MBUAPCD...............................        405  Exceptions...................       *03/22/00        05/26/00
MBUAPCD...............................        406  Additional Exception.........       *03/22/00        05/26/00
SCAQMD................................       1138  Control of Emissions from            11/14/97       03/10/98
                                                    Restaurant Operations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Rescinded.

    On October 6, 2000, we determined that the submittals of ICAPCD 
Rules 101, 408, 409, 421, and 702 and MBUAPCD Rules 405 and 406 met the 
completeness criteria. On May 21, 1998, we determined that the 
submittal of SCAQMD Rule 1138 met the completeness criteria.

B. Are There Other Versions of These Rules?

    We approved versions of submitted ICAPCD Rule 101 into the ICAPCD 
portion of the SIP as Rule 101, Definitions, on May 27, 1982 (47 FR 
23159) and as Rule 701, Definitions, on January 27, 1981 (46 FR 8472).
    We approved a version of submitted ICAPCD Rule 408 into the ICAPCD 
portion of the SIP as Rule 408, Frost Protection and Orchard Heaters, 
on January 27, 1981 (46 FR 8472).
    We approved a version of submitted ICAPCD Rule 409 into the ICAPCD 
portion of the SIP as Rule 409, Incinerators, on November 18, 1983 (48 
FR 52452).
    We approved a version of submitted ICAPCD Rule 420 into the ICAPCD 
portion of the SIP as Rule 420, Livestock Feed Yards, on February 3, 
1989 (54 FR 5448). The current submittal supersedes a submittal on 
October 25, 1991 on which we have not acted.
    We approved a version of submitted ICAPCD Rule 421 into the ICAPCD 
portion of the SIP as Rule 421, Open Burning--Non-Agricultural, Rule 
422, Open Burning of Wood Wastes, and Rule 423, Exceptions, on February 
3, 1989 (54 FR 5448).
    We approved versions of submitted ICAPCD Rule 701 into the ICAPCD 
portion of the SIP as Rule 202, Exceptions, on August 22, 1977 (42 FR 
42224) and Rule 702, Prohibitions, and Rule 706, Penalty Clause, on 
January 27, 1981 (46 FR 8472).
    We approved a version of submitted ICAPCD Rule 702 into the ICAPCD 
portion of the SIP as Rule 705, Range Improvement Burning, on January 
27, 1981 (46 FR 8472).
    We approved versions of submitted MBUAPCD Rule 403 into the MBUAPCD 
portion of the SIP as Rule 403, Particulate Matter, on May 18, 1981 (46 
FR 27116) and as Rule 405, Exceptions, on July 13, 1987 (52 FR 26148).
    We approved MBUAPCD Rule 406, Additional Exception, into the 
MBUAPCD portion of the SIP on July 13, 1987 (52 FR 26148).
    We approved the following versions of submitted SJVUAPCD Rule 4201 
into the portions of the California SIP applicable to each of the eight 
counties that were unified and now comprise the SJVUAPCD:
     Fresno County Rule 404, Particulate Matter Concentration, 
approved on August 22, 1977 (42 FR 42219).
     Kern County Rule 404, Particulate Matter Concentration--
Valley Basin, approved on August 22, 1977 (42 FR 42219).
     Kings County Rule 404, Particulate Matter, approved on 
August 4, 1978 (43 FR 34468).
     Madera County Rule 403, Particulate Matter Emissions from 
the Incineration of Combustible Refuse, approved on April 16, 1991 (56 
FR 15286).
     Merced County Rule 404, Particulate Matter Concentration, 
June 14, 1978 (43 FR 25689).
     San Joaquin County Rule 404, Particulate Matter 
Concentration, approved on August 22, 1977 (42 FR 42219).
     Stanislaus County Rule 404, Particulate Matter 
Concentration, approved on August 22, 1977 (42 FR 42219).
     Tulare County Rule 404, Particulate Matter, approved on 
August 22, 1977 (42 FR 42219).
    Submitted SJVUAPCD Rule 4901 is a new rule with no previous 
versions or submittals.
    Submitted SCAQMD Rule 1138 is a new rule with no previous versions 
or submittals.

C. What Are the Changes in the Submitted Rules?

    Submitted ICAPCD Rule 101 has the following changes:
     Many definitions were added or revised to correspond to 
requirements of the amended Clean Air Act of 1990 (CAA).
     The definitions for Major Source and Major Modification 
were deleted. These definitions are not relevant in Rule 207, New 
Source Review, because the threshold requiring new source review is 
more stringent than that defined for a major source or major 
modification.

[[Page 78436]]

     The definitions from SIP Rule 701 were transferred to Rule 
101.
    Submitted ICAPCD Rule 408 adds a prohibition to burn oil in open 
containers and adds requirements that orchard heaters be clean, in good 
repair, and be free of solids in stacks.
    Submitted ICAPCD Rule 409 has the following changes:
     The specific temperature and contact time for burning was 
added.
     The exemption was clarified to exclude the burning of 
certain materials that produce smoke or toxic fumes.
    Submitted Rule ICAPCD Rule 420 has the following changes:
     The submitted rule applies to all livestock feed yards 
subject to ICAPCD regulations, while the SIP-approved rule applies 
strictly to livestock feed yards located within 1.5 miles from any 
``urban limit,'' as defined by the County General Plan.
     Submitted Rule 420 specifies under a new ``Test Methods'' 
section that moisture content shall be determined with an electrical 
conductivity moisture meter.
    Submitted ICAPCD Rule 421 consists of SIP Rules 421, 422, and 423 
combined. In addition, the following changes were made:
     The exception to the general prohibition to use an orchard 
heater for freeze protection was deleted.
     The exception to the general prohibition to use equipment 
in agricultural operations were deleted.
     The exception to the general prohibition to burn for 
agricultural operations for the grazing of animals or raising of cattle 
was deleted.
     The authority of a public officer to set or permit a fire 
for the remediation of an oil spill on water (presumed on a No-Burn 
Day) pursuant to Section 8670.7 of the California Government Code was 
added.
    Submitted ICAPCD Rule 701 consists primarily of SIP Rule 702 
renumbered to Rule 701, plus the exceptions contained in SIP Rule 202. 
An authority citation from SIP Rule 706 is revised and also moved into 
Rule 701, while the penalty clause was omitted. SIP Rule 701 contained 
only definitions, which were transferred to Rule 101 and will be 
superseded by submitted Rule 101 in another TSD. The significant 
changes in submitted Rule 701 are as follows:
     The APCO was granted the authority to restrict burning on 
Burn Days, if meteorological conditions would cause an undue amount of 
emissions to be transported to populated or sensitive receptor areas or 
cause or contribute to a violation of an ambient air quality standard.
     The requirement was added that a District inspector must 
be present for agricultural burns near residential areas, rural 
schools, or heavily travelled roads.
    Submitted Rule 702 consists primarily of SIP Rule 705 renumbered. 
There are no significant changes between Rules 702 and 705.
    Submitted MBUAPCD Rule 403 has all of the exceptions in Rule 405 
transferred to it as exemptions to Rule 403. An exemption for internal 
combustion engines was also added.
    Submitted MBUAPCD Rules 405 and 406 are rescinded.
    Submitted SJVUAPCD Rule 4201 changes are as follows:
     The rules of eight old counties that unified into SJVUAPCD 
are combined into a single rule, which is equally as stringent.
    Submitted SJVUAPCD Rule 4901 is a new rule that consists of the 
following:
     All new wood heaters must be EPA-certified Phase II or 
pellet-fueled.
     All used wood heaters must be EPA-certified or Oregon-
certified or pellet-fueled.
     Retailers must provide public awareness information with 
each wood burner sale and cannot advertise wood as ``seasoned'' unless 
the moisture content is 20 percent or less by weight.
     The rule establishes a two-stage voluntary curtailment 
program during November through February for areas located less than 
3,000 feet above mean sea level, except where wood burning is the sole 
source of heat or natural gas is not available. The APCO will request a 
Level I voluntary curtailment when a Pollutant Standards Index (PSI) of 
100 or greater is predicted or request a Level II voluntary curtailment 
when a PSI of 150 or greater is predicted.
    Submitted SCAQMD Rule 1138 is a new rule that consists of the 
following:
     The operator of a chain-driven charbroiler must install a 
catalytic oxidizer or equivalent control device that will result in an 
emissions decrease of about 83% for both PM-10 and VOC.
     An operator of a charbroiler with permitted control 
equipment operating before November 14, 1997 may continue to operate 
for the life of the control equipment. At this time but not later than 
November 14, 2007, the operator must replace the existing control 
equipment with a catalytic oxidizer or equivalent control device.
     An operator that cooks less than 875 pounds of meat per 
week or emits less than one pound per day of any criteria pollutant may 
apply for an exemption, but must keep records to support the exemption.
    The TSDs have more information about these rules.

II. EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How Is EPA Evaluating the Rules?

    We evaluated these rules for enforceability and consistency with 
the CAA as amended in 1990, with 40 CFR part 51, and with EPA's PM-10 
policy. Sections 172(c)(1) and 189(a) of the CAA require moderate PM-10 
nonattainment areas to implement reasonably available control measures 
(RACM), including reasonably available control technology (RACT) for 
stationary sources of PM-10. Section 189(b) requires that serious PM-10 
nonattainment areas, in addition to meeting the RACM/RACT requirements, 
implement best available control measures (BACM), including best 
available control technology (BACT). ICAPCD is a moderate PM-10 
nonattainment area. MBUAPCD is a PM-10 attainment area and need not 
meet BACM/BACT or RACM/RACT control levels. SJVUAPCD and SCAQMD are 
serious PM-10 nonattainment areas. SCAQMD is an extreme ozone 
nonattainment area and is required by section 182(a)(2)(A) of the CAA 
to meet RACT requirements for VOC.
    EPA's preliminary guidance for moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas 
provides that RACM/RACT is required to be implemented for all source 
categories unless the State demonstrates that a particular source 
category does not contribute significantly to PM-10 levels in excess of 
the NAAQS (i.e., de minimis sources). See General Preamble for the 
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, 57 
FR 13498, 13540 (April 16, 1992) and Addendum to the General Preamble 
for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 
1990, 59 FR 41998 (August 16, 1994). The activities subject to ICAPCD 
Rule 420 contribute a significant amount of the total PM-10 emissions, 
and the activities subject to submitted Rules 701 and 702 contribute a 
small but not insignificant amount of the total PM-10 emissions in the 
Imperial Valley according to the September 23, 1993 State 
Implementation Plan for PM-10 in the Imperial Valley (ICAPCD PM-10 
Plan). Moreover, the ICAPCD PM-10 Plan relies on SIP Rules 702, 704, 
and 705, which are versions of submitted Rules 701 and 702. Submitted 
Rules 420, 701, and 702 must meet RACM/RACT control levels. However, we 
are not determining at this time whether Rule 420 does so.
    The activities subject to ICAPCD Rules 408, 409 and 421 do not 
contribute a significant amount of the total PM-10 emissions in ICAPCD

[[Page 78437]]

according to the ICAPCD PM-10 Plan. Therefore, ICAPCD Rules 408, 409, 
and 421 are not being evaluated to meet RACM/RACT control levels, but 
only to ensure that they do not relax the SIP in violation of sections 
110(l) and 193 of the CAA and that they meet enforceability and other 
general SIP requirements of section 110.
    The activities subject to submitted SJVUAPCD Rule 4201 contribute a 
small but not insignificant amount of the total PM-10 emissions in the 
SJVUAPCD according to the May 15, 1997 SJVUAPCD PM-10 Attainment 
Demonstration Plan (SJVUAPCD PM-10 Plan). Moreover, the SJVUAPCD PM-10 
Plan relies on Rule 4201. Therefore, submitted Rule 4201 must meet 
BACM/BACT control levels.
    The activities subject to submitted SJVUAPCD Rule 4901 contribute a 
significant amount of the total PM-10 emissions in the SJVUAPCD 
according to the SJVUAPCD PM-10 Plan. Moreover, the SJVUAPCD PM-10 Plan 
relies on Rule 4901. Therefore, submitted Rule 4901 must meet BACM 
requirements.
    The activities subject to submitted SCAQMD Rule 1138 must meet 
BACM/BACT requirements for PM-10 and RACT requirements for VOC.
    The TSDs have more information on how we evaluated the rules.
    Guidance and policy documents that we used to define specific 
enforceability, RACM/RACT, BACM/BACT, and SIP relaxation requirements 
include the following:
     PM-10 Guideline Document, (EPA-452/R093-008).
     State Implementation Plan for PM-10 in the Imperial Valley 
(September 23, 1993).
     General Preamble Appendix C3--Prescribed Burning Control 
Measures, 57 FR 18072 (April 28, 1992).
     Addendum to the General Preamble for the Implementation of 
Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, 59 FR 41998 (August 
16, 1994).
     Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, 
and Deviations: Clarification to Appendix D of November 24, 1987 
Federal Register (Blue Book), notice of availability published in the 
Federal Register (May 25, 1988).
     Guidance Document for Residential Wood Combustion Emission 
Control Measures (EPA-450/2-89-015).
     Technical Information Document for Residential wood 
Combustion Best Available control Measures, EPA-450/2-92-002 (September 
1992).
     Model Volatile Organic Compound Rules for Reasonably 
Available Control Technology (June 1992).

B. Do the Rules Meet the Evaluation Criteria?

    These rules are largely consistent with the relevant policy and 
guidance regarding enforceability and SIP relaxations. Rule provisions 
which do not meet the evaluation criteria are summarized below and 
discussed further in the TSDs.

C. What Are the Rule Deficiencies?

    ICAPCD Rule 420 contains the following deficiencies:
     The rule lacks a test method procedure by which to 
determine compliance with the moisture content standard (e.g. minimum 
number of samples to be collected, specifics on collecting 
representative samples, whether moisture content results of each sample 
are to be averaged for a final result).
     The rule lacks a definition of ``rainy period.''
     The rule contains inappropriate Executive Officer 
discretion with respect to allowing exceptions to compliance with the 
rule's moisture content standard. Specific criteria for granting an 
exception must be included in the rule. ICAPCD Rule 701 contains the 
following deficiency:
     The rule has limited enforceability, because of the open-
ended discretion of the Director to approve an exemption to burn on a 
No-Burn Day in case of imminent and substantial economic loss if the 
burning were not allowed. The conditions to allow such burning must be 
limited such that it is unlikely that the NAAQS would be violated or 
that there would be smoke impacts on sensitive areas. MBUAPCD Rule 403 
contains the following deficiencies:
     The rule enforceability is limited, because it does not 
contain periodic monitoring requirements.
     The rule enforceability is limited, because it does not 
state the test method for PM.
     The rule enforceability is limited, because it does not 
require recordkeeping for at least two years. SJVUAPCD Rule 4201 
contains the following deficiencies:
     The rule does not appear to meet the requirements of BACM/
BACT. Other serious PM-10 nonattainment areas have lower particulate 
matter emission limits.
     The rule does not have periodic monitoring requirements.
     The rule does not require recordkeeping for at least two 
years.
    SJVUAPCD Rule 4901 contains the following deficiency:
     The rule does not appear to meet the requirements of BACM, 
which should include restrictions on the sale and installation of 
woodburning fireplaces, mandatory curtailment during periods of poor 
air quality, and possibly other control measures.

D. EPA recommendations to Further Improve the Rules

    The TSD for ICAPCD Rule 421 describes an additional rule revision 
that does not affect our current action but is recommended for the next 
time the local agency modifies the rule.

E. Proposed Action and Public Comment

    As authorized in sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, we are 
proposing a limited approval of MBUAPCD Rule 403 to improve the SIP. If 
finalized, this action would incorporate the submitted rule into the 
SIP, including those provisions identified as deficient. We are 
simultaneously proposing a limited disapproval of this rule under 
section 110(k)(3). If this disapproval is finalized, no sanctions would 
be imposed under section 179 of the CAA because the area is PM-10 
attainment and the rule is not required to maintain attainment. Note 
that the submitted rule has been adopted by the District, and our final 
limited disapproval would not prevent the local agency from enforcing 
it.
    As authorized in sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, we are 
proposing a limited approval of ICAPCD Rules 420 and 701, SJVUAPCD Rule 
4201, and SJVUAPCD Rule 4901 to improve the SIP. If finalized, this 
action would incorporate these submitted rules into the SIP, including 
those provisions identified as deficient. We are simultaneously 
proposing a limited disapproval of these rules under section 110(k)(3). 
If this disapproval is finalized, sanctions will be imposed under 
section 179 of the Act unless EPA approves subsequent SIP revisions 
that correct the rule deficiencies within 18 months. These sanctions 
would be imposed as described in 59 FR 39832 (August 4, 1994) because 
the areas are PM-10 nonattainment and the PM-10 emissions are not 
insignificant. A final disapproval would also trigger the federal 
implementation plan (FIP) requirement under section 110(c). Note that 
the submitted rules have been adopted by the Districts, and our final 
limited disapproval would not prevent the local agencies from enforcing 
them.
    As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is also 
proposing a full approval of ICAPCD Rules 101, 408, 409, 421, and 702, 
a full approval of the recision of MBUAPCD Rules 405 and

[[Page 78438]]

406, and a full approval of SCAQMD Rule 1138 to improve the SIP.
    We will accept comments from the public on the proposed limited 
approval and limited disapproval and on the proposed full approvals for 
the next 30 days.

III. Background Information

A. Why Were These Rules Submitted?

    PM-10 harms human health and the environment. Section 110(a) of the 
CAA requires states to submit regulations that control PM-10 emissions. 
Table 3 lists some of the national milestones leading to the submittal 
of local agency PM-10 rules.

                Table 3.--PM-10 Nonattainment Milestones
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Date                                Event
------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 3, 1978..........................  EPA promulgated a list of total
                                          suspended particulate (TSP)
                                          nonattainment areas under the
                                          Clean Air Act, as amended in
                                          1977. 43 FR 8964; 40 CFR
                                          81.305.
July 1, 1987...........................  EPA replaced the TSP standards
                                          with new PM standards applying
                                          only up to 10 microns in
                                          diameter (PM-10). 52 FR 24672.
November 15, 1990......................  Clean Air Act Amendments of
                                          1990 were enacted, Pub. L. 101-
                                          549, 104 Stat. 2399, codified
                                          at 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
November 15, 1990......................  PM-10 areas meeting the
                                          qualifications of section
                                          107(d)(4)(A) and (B) of the
                                          CAA were designated
                                          nonattainment by operation of
                                          law and classified as moderate
                                          or serious pursuant to section
                                          186(a) and 189(a). States are
                                          required by section 110(a) to
                                          submit rules regulating CO and
                                          PM-10 emissions in order to
                                          achieve the attainment dates
                                          specified in sections
                                          186(a)(1) and 188(c).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this 
regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and 
Review.

B. Executive Order 13045

    Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 
1997), applies to any rule that: (1) is determined to be ``economically 
significant'' as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns 
an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe 
may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory 
action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental 
health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain 
why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective 
and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does 
not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or 
safety risks.

C. Executive Order 13084

    Under Executive Order 13084, Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not 
required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the 
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those 
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084 
requires EPA to provide to the OMB in a separately identified section 
of the preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of EPA's prior 
consultation with representatives of affected tribal governments, a 
summary of the nature of their concerns, and a statement supporting the 
need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 
requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected 
officials and other representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to 
provide meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory 
policies on matters that significantly or uniquely affect their 
communities.''
    Today's proposed rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the 
communities of Indian tribal governments. Accordingly, the requirements 
of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this proposed 
rule.

D. Executive Order 13132

    Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 
1999) revokes and replaces Executive Orders 12612, Federalism and 
12875, Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership. Executive Order 
13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct 
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' Under 
Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has 
federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance 
costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with 
State and local officials early in the process of developing the 
proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation that has 
federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the Agency 
consults with State and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation.
    This proposed rule will not have substantial direct effects on the 
States, on the relationship between the national government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, 
because it merely acts on a state rule implementing a federal standard, 
and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and 
responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. Thus, the 
requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this 
proposed rule.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies 
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small 
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental 
jurisdictions.
    This proposed rule will not have a significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities because SIP actions under section 
110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act do not create any new 
requirements but simply act on requirements that the State is already 
imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP action does not create any 
new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a

[[Page 78439]]

significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under 
the Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute 
Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The 
Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such 
grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 
42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

F. Unfunded Mandates

    Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA 
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or 
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated 
annual costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; 
or to private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA 
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with 
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan 
for informing and advising any small governments that may be 
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    EPA has determined that the proposed action does not include a 
Federal mandate that may result in estimated annual costs of $100 
million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the 
aggregate, or to the private sector. This proposed Federal action acts 
on pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no 
new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or 
tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing 
technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with 
NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards'' 
(VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies 
unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise 
impractical.
    EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to today's proposed action 
because it does not require the public to perform activities conducive 
to the use of VCS.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

  

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Ozone, Particulate matter, Volatile organic compounds.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: December 5, 2000.
Felicia Marcus,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 00-32025 Filed 12-14-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U